ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT...

          The Jewellers Association called off their All India strike on Saturday, the 19-Mar-2016, which was on for almost 18 days, after getting an assurance from the Revenue Secretary, Shri Hasmukh Adhia, that they will not be harassed by the Central Excise staff. This development was reported by all the leading newspapers on Sunday, the 20-Mar-2016.

The word ‘harassment’ and ‘Inspector Raj’ is normally used by members of the Trade to malign the lower formations of the Department. When all business transactions pertaining to Central Excise can be carried out through on-line means, without any physical verification, still the tag is there and nobody from the Department opposes such maligning.

CESA-Mumbai, in the context of Rule 56 (j), submits that the harassment suffered silently & consistently by the lower formations i.e. Inspectors and Superintendents, there is no one to whom they can approach for redressal. There is no JCM or any other forum where the cadre can raise their problems / issues, which they face on a day to day basis while discharging their duties. In the current scenario, there is no regular Commissioner / ADC /JC / AC posted to many of the Commissionerates and the Inspectors & Ministerial staff are the rarest of commodities. The Superintendent cadre does not even have contingent staff for any assistance. In the circle or in the range, he has to discharge his functions without the support of any Inspector, Ministerial staff or Sepoys, from attending to exports to assessment, from approval of SCNs to serving of SCNs, from briefing of panel counsel to attending to the court and ultimately landing in soup for any shortcomings/lacunas. Stress is bound to increase as the Supdt. and the few Inspectors are not ‘Superman’ !!

It is said that ‘Work is Worship’, but have the authorities ever ensured that the place of work is maintained in such a manner that work becomes worship for all the employees ? There is no element of learning by the top bosses – once they decide that other than a set of reports no additional reports will be requested for, but somebody or the other is there who will ask for some new reports from the lower formations. Even taking of leave has become a matter of contention between the officer and his boss – denial of leave has now become another cause for the increase in stress.

The purpose of Rule 56 (j) was to keep the organization lean and young by removing the deadwood among the staff and officers. A basic criteria was that the officer should have completed 30 years of service and should have crossed 50/55 years. Also the officer’s last 5 years ACRs are also to be considered.

Presently the Board officials, who are known for their gentleness and honesty never used the word of Rule 56 (j) to get their work done from their subordinates. But it is unfortunate to see that it has become an habit by the senior officers in a Commissionerate to use the threat of Rule 56 (j) to terrorise their subordinates.

But in the present scenario, the exercise is being carried out in haste and all the Members of the Screening / Scrutiny Committees are attending such meetings for the first time in their career, without knowing the seriousness and consequences of their actions and therefore their judgement appears to be erroneous.

For example, in the case of Mr. X, who has put in more than 30 years of service and 5 years of service in Dedicated Legal Cell, singlehandedly attended to all the High court and Supreme Court matters, is now made a scapegoat for not following an arbitrary order for preparation of order-in-original and refund claims. The good work put in by this officer in his entire career spanning 30 years has been brought to naught. Moreover, the said punishment is too harsh and his immediate superiors have never found the officer to be either incompetent or of doubtful integrity.

 In the judiciary, from JMM court to the Apex court, the Magistrate to the CJI, dictate their orders, consisting of either one page or hundreds of pages, proof read & correct their orders before signing the judgement copies. They are more self reliant in discharging their duties.

But in our Department, they claim that they exercise quasi-judicial authority but in reality, they ask their lower officers to prepare the orders. And when the pendency numbers increase, they even distribute the files among the officers in the field formations, who are already over-burdened, to prepare the adjudication orders. If any officer/s show any reluctance in doing the same, then he is branded as a rebellious officer and is ‘fixed’ by Dept. as in the case of Mr. X.

Another officer, Mr. Y was given charge of Confidential & Vigilance Section of a Commissionerate for a considerable period after which he was posted to a range. Due to some genuine personal problems, he informed his superiors and sought concession in attending office. When he was having ample leave in his account, taking action under Rule 56 (j) is sheer arbitrary and unlawful. 

Another officer, Mr. Z was not attending office for some time and he has been considered for compulsory retirement. The Dept. has not bothered to find out the reason for his absence, nor initiated any disciplinary action on this account and without exhausting the available remedial measures, the decision has been taken to remove the officer under Rule 56 (j).

There are three other officers who are considered under Rule 56 (j) on account of absenteeism, without taking recourse to the available remedial measures under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Another is the case of a Driver. After the introduction of the 1% incremental scheme, private vehicles are used even for official purposes, and the use of Govt. vehicles have reduced and a large number of drivers are sitting idle. If they attend office, they do not have a place to sit and many of them have not touched a steering wheel for years together. This is nothing but sheer wastage of manpower and their services have not been utilized. It is a big question to them as to why they should attend office after commuting in the crowded local trains just to sign the muster to show their presence. It is on record that once upon a time he was the best, most prompt & most sought after driver, without any record of accidents or mishaps. The Dept. never bothered about their career prospects and their service to the organization. It didn’t take much time to decide that the services of this driver are no longer required.

            Thus, the said action appears to be made under duress, thereby forcing the officers to go for litigation to prove their bonafides. After putting in so many years of service and at the fag end of their career, they do not deserve such type of treatment from the Department.

Ultimately, the said action may be set aside by the judiciary and the Department will be forced to pay the dues amounting to lakhs of rupees, without availing the benefit of the officer’s services – at that time the present set of senior officers will not be there to own-up to their errors of judgement !!

*********